Acc. To Delta: Combined FA Workforce "Most Likely" to vote again.

[Danny Campbell]

Jake:

Let me clarify something for you. When I paint the scenario above (i.e, the response from NWA FAs), I want to make it abundantly clear that is NOT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS at all. In fact, it is the least desirable outcome in my opinion. I cited that outcome -- based entirely on my experience as a union activists and knowing how people respond in a large democracy. I spent 2 hours on the phone today with a 30 yr NWA FA who is already taking the position I outlined. I tried like hell to talk her down and was reasonably successful. At a minimum, I am asking my peers to allow you all to make your decision to join AFA before jumping to conclusions and taking some silly hard-line position.

But, you have to remember something here, I am NOT an elected leader at NWA. I am a FA -- who has volunteered to work on external organizing campaigns. I don't have control on how our leaders (or members) will respond to threats to their seniority. I do, however, have a pretty long history of trying to bring people together - and work together....but that doesn't put me in a position of authority at all.

I first heard about Checchi / Wilson in this article; http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17927509.html

The employees on the NWA side are 'stinging' from our recent battles with NWA and many are watching the 'divide and conquer' game all over again. Unfortunately, the actions (or inactions) of the Delta FAs are going to have an effect on these feelings - I'm not saying its RIGHT or even RATIONAL - but it happens. The communications that your management is putting out about "keeping your options open" and all of that non-sense is a deliberate tactic to instill anger on the NWA side (since we have a date-of-hire policy). When NWA FAs read this stuff -- and they do -- they interpret that your management is telling you to try to get an advantage over our seniority.

Danny

 

[Danny Campbell]

Cajunflyer:

Two things...

First, it is NOT true that both sides have to agree to arbitration. The new federal law COMPELS arbitration if EITHER side calls for it.

Here, look at the breakdown of our NWA seniority list. By date-of-hire, we (NWA) stand to lose more, since we are a more junior workforce. In arbitration, we may VERY WELL do BETTER than date-of=hire (just as the America West pilots did). So, you need to think carefully before rolling the dice across the board...

NWA SENIORITY - as of February 2008

NWA F/As Dates of Hire
Seniority # (year thru Year)

0001 - 1000 Date of hire 1951 - 1978
1001 - 2000 Date of hire 1978 - 1985
2001 - 3000 Date of hire 1985 - 1988
3001 - 4000 Date of hire 1988 - 1990 (March 90)
4001 - 5000 Date of hire 1990 - 1992 (June 92)
5001 - 6000 Date of hire 1992 - 1997
6001 - 7000 Date of hire 1997 - 2001 (June '01)
7001 - 8000 Date of hire 2001 - Present (NWA has hired nearly 1,000 FAs since 2007)

 

[Danny Campbell]

P.S. This list doesn't include 100's of FAs hired this year.

 

[Cajun Flyer]

Cajunflyer:

Two things...

First, it is NOT true that both sides have to agree to arbitration. The new federal law COMPELS arbitration if EITHER side calls for it.

Here, look at the breakdown of our NWA seniority list. By date-of-hire, we (NWA) stand to lose more, since we are a more junior workforce. In arbitration, we may VERY WELL do BETTER than date-of=hire (just as the America West pilots did). So, you need to think carefully before rolling the dice across the board...

NWA SENIORITY - as of February 2008

NWA F/As Dates of Hire
Seniority # (year thru Year)

0001 - 1000 Date of hire 1951 - 1978
1001 - 2000 Date of hire 1978 - 1985
2001 - 3000 Date of hire 1985 - 1988
3001 - 4000 Date of hire 1988 - 1990 (March 90)
4001 - 5000 Date of hire 1990 - 1992 (June 92)
5001 - 6000 Date of hire 1992 - 1997
6001 - 7000 Date of hire 1997 - 2001 (June '01)
7001 - 8000 Date of hire 2001 - Present (NWA has hired nearly 1,000 FAs since 2007)

I would prefer to take our chances with arbitration than through straight date of hire. The Allegheny Mohawk provisions which would guide the arbitrator's decisions refer to career expectations in the criteria as well as other methodologies that may be utilized including date of hire and ratios. The career expectation at Delta would include a much broader network and routes than that at NWA. Straight date of hire would allow your F/A's to waltz into Atlanta and NYC and displace flight attendants who are now flying great international routes, especially in NYC where F/A's are holding international trips with as little as 8 years seniority. Opportunities for US based flight attendants of NWA are much fewer than they are for Delta F/A's and simply put, no one at Delta wants to be displaced for senior people to transfer in and take the best flying. The only way to protect that is through a fair and equitable seniority list and not straight date of hire.

 

[Danny Campbell]

Cajun:

Hear me out on this one, ok?

The scenario of people being "bumped" out is NOT LIKELY to happen if you join AFA. The reason, is because if you join AFA, our contract remains in place. Our contract (Section 1 - Scope) states the following...

d. Where formerly separate operations eventually are to be integrated, the two Flight Attendant groups shall be kept separate until their seniority lists are integrated in accordance with the requirements of this Section and the rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the post-merger craft or class are established by agreement or otherwise in conformity with the Railway Labor Act.

e. So long as the two Flight Attendant groups remain separate, the rates of pay, rules and working conditions set forth in this Agreement shall be observed with respect to the Flight Attendants whose names appear on the NWA Flight Attendant System Seniority List.

What this language affectively does, is keep a "fence" between us, until we negotiate a COMBINED contract. That means you have nothing to worry about -- and we wouldn't negotiate a contract that allows ANY bumping of seniority...that is NEVER in a contract. Now, on the contrary, if you don't join AFA and our contract is ruled NULL and VOID, only THEN can what you propose above happen. And, I would go so far as to say that it would play right into Anderson & Co's plans to divide and conquer us.

Hopefully, you will think about this more.

 

[700UW]

Cajun Flyer, go over to the US board and ask the East Pilots about arbitration, you wont like the answers.

 

[JakesWorld]

Jake:

Let me clarify something for you. When I paint the scenario above (i.e, the response from NWA FAs), I want to make it abundantly clear that is NOT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS at all. In fact, it is the least desirable outcome in my opinion. I cited that outcome -- based entirely on my experience as a union activists and knowing how people respond in a large democracy. I spent 2 hours on the phone today with a 30 yr NWA FA who is already taking the position I outlined. I tried like hell to talk her down and was reasonably successful. At a minimum, I am asking my peers to allow you all to make your decision to join AFA before jumping to conclusions and taking some silly hard-line position.

But, you have to remember something here, I am NOT an elected leader at NWA. I am a FA -- who has volunteered to work on external organizing campaigns. I don't have control on how our leaders (or members) will respond to threats to their seniority. I do, however, have a pretty long history of trying to bring people together - and work together....but that doesn't put me in a position of authority at all.

I first heard about Checchi / Wilson in this article; http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17927509.html

The employees on the NWA side are 'stinging' from our recent battles with NWA and many are watching the 'divide and conquer' game all over again. Unfortunately, the actions (or inactions) of the Delta FAs are going to have an effect on these feelings - I'm not saying its RIGHT or even RATIONAL - but it happens. The communications that your management is putting out about "keeping your options open" and all of that non-sense is a deliberate tactic to instill anger on the NWA side (since we have a date-of-hire policy). When NWA FAs read this stuff -- and they do -- they interpret that your management is telling you to try to get an advantage over our seniority.

Danny

Danny

The article you cite from the Star Tribune is pure speculation regarding Checci and Wilson being a part of this. The writer could have also said that the Pope or Pat Friend will be part of the new BOD, would you belive that tool? I would also like you to clafiry then that in your earlier post (post #8) regarding both Checci and Wilson being on Delta's BOD is not TRUE? This is what frightens me about AFA and all the newsletters they have printed, they are full of misleading information and partial truths. If we can't trust them during an organizing campaign how can we trust them to fulfill promises at a later time?

Then you go on to state that if Delta does not vote in AFA it is a "war cry", if the NW F/A are reading something into this information then it is your union leaders and the AFA's responsibility to educate them on the facts. Cajun Flyer has a lot of valid points regarding arbitration, should it go in that direction. An aribitrator is not only going to look at the fact that NW is an AFA carrier, there are other variables, i.e. number of a/c, routes, size of work group, etc. Again, AFA is attempting to scare the DL F/A's into voting yes by not giving them all the information on what aribitration is. You also stated in post #8 how a group of DL F/A's would have no power to compel or reach a legal agreement on seniority integration, then what happened with WA/DL? You really think that there would not be a legal representative at that table with us, Danny we as DL F/A's have just at much right to sit at a table union or not to work with another F/A group regarding seniority issues. It seems as though someone is feeding the NW F/A's some misinformation as well which would create anymosity. As Cajun Flyer mentioned do you think it is fair if we have a 10yr DL F/A holding intl out of NYC, a 12yr NW F/A, who currently could not hold intl, or no intl at their base, and based on NW current flying it takes say 15-16yrs to hold intl, that the NW F/A isbased in NYC or transfers in, can out bid the DL F/A who then no longer flies intl? That's the point a lot of us are trying to make. It's not an AA/TW situation it's about not compromising our current (for lack of a better word) lifestyle. Allowing both the NW and DL F/A to continue flying what they have been flying and keeping it all on an even level.

 

[DLSam]

Cajun:

Hear me out on this one, ok?

The scenario of people being "bumped" out is NOT LIKELY to happen if you join AFA. The reason, is because if you join AFA, our contract remains in place. Our contract (Section 1 - Scope) states the following...

d. Where formerly separate operations eventually are to be integrated, the two Flight Attendant groups shall be kept separate until their seniority lists are integrated in accordance with the requirements of this Section and the rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the post-merger craft or class are established by agreement or otherwise in conformity with the Railway Labor Act.

e. So long as the two Flight Attendant groups remain separate, the rates of pay, rules and working conditions set forth in this Agreement shall be observed with respect to the Flight Attendants whose names appear on the NWA Flight Attendant System Seniority List.

What this language affectively does, is keep a "fence" between us, until we negotiate a COMBINED contract. That means you have nothing to worry about -- and we wouldn't negotiate a contract that allows ANY bumping of seniority...that is NEVER in a contract. Now, on the contrary, if you don't join AFA and our contract is ruled NULL and VOID, only THEN can what you propose above happen. And, I would go so far as to say that it would play right into Anderson & Co's plans to divide and conquer us.

Hopefully, you will think about this more.

Hi Danny,

Could you offer some futher clarification or expand the above?

Currently the f/a's at DL have a system where transfers can only occur if there are spots available in each base. No f/a can be bumped out of the base by a more senior person (even in the event of base closures). However, transfers are awarded monthly (other than satillite bases) and if a more senior person gets awarded a slot in a certain base, then that could and currently does effect the more jr person in that particular base. Is that the same system NW f/a's have?

Also, in the event of furloughs, what protections do the NW f/a's have? Are voluntary leavve packages usually offered, or is it just straight furlough. How about f/a's with language skills? Are they "protected" in the event of layoffs, or is it simply straight seniority (a huge issue over at DL)?

As always, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions in a gracious and professional manner!

DLSam

 

[JakesWorld]

Hi Danny,

Could you offer some futher clarification or expand the above?

Currently the f/a's at DL have a system where transfers can only occur if there are spots available in each base. No f/a can be bumped out of the base by a more senior person (even in the event of base closures). However, transfers are awarded monthly (other than satillite bases) and if a more senior person gets awarded a slot in a certain base, then that could and currently does effect the more jr person in that particular base. Is that the same system NW f/a's have?

Also, in the event of furloughs, what protections do the NW f/a's have? Are voluntary leavve packages usually offered, or is it just straight furlough. How about f/a's with language skills? Are they "protected" in the event of layoffs, or is it simply straight seniority (a huge issue over at DL)?

As always, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions in a gracious and professional manner!

DLSam

DL Sam

What can happen if/when the merger is final and a seniority integration agreement/date of hire occurs, is that a fence can be placed around each airlines current operation. What that means is that any base/flying we have and that NW has remains within its specific F/A group for a specified amount of time (i.e. 3-5 years). The fence also protects specific routes, i.e. all Asian flying other than our current ATL-NRT/ICN/PVG remains NW and all our our current European flying with the exception of what NW operates from MSP/DTW remains flown by DL F/A's. If date of hire is used once the fence comes down, and F/A's begin to transfer at that point anyone can transfer to any "open" base and allows them to fly what their seniority can hold.
At this point if AFA is voted in date-of-hire will be used, as a seperate airline I am asssuming we would then being negotiating our first contract, which I assume at this day in age will take anywhere from 18 months to 2 years. Then on the other hand I guess considering the merger situation we could have to wait until we are deemed one work group DL/NW and begin negotiating a single contract at that point. I am assuming this will be up to the AFA BOD to make this decision. Reading AFA's Constitution it does state that one airlines contract cannot have a negative impact on anothers. With us merging AFA could decide just that. That by DL negotiating seperately it would negatively impact a combined contract. So we at DL would not begin negotiating until we negotiate for a single agreement. Also Danny Campbell stating that the NW contract being ruled null and void, when does he expect that to happen? The NW Scope language that they talk so much about does not permit that to happen. Once the NMB declares NW/DL one work group it automatically will result in a election for representation as NW makes up more than 35% of the combined group. Now, if at that time based on a NW/DL vote AFA is not voted in then the combined group would be working under the DL rules. IF, that occurs that is some time down the road and based on what AFA and Danny has said that will not happen as they have the FULL support of the NW F/A and simple math tells you at that time all AFA needs is 15% plus 1 of DL F/A's voting yes to elect AFA representation. Based on what AFA and the NWAFA has been saying DL could not do anything to the NW contract for quite some time. AFA is saying that Anderson is trying to create a division among both groups, maybe its the AFA that is attempting to cause turmoil, as the information they share goes from one side to the other.
Regarding language speakers, at this time DL could furlough another F/A before furloughing a language speaker. Could that occur yes, has it ever occurred NO it has not. Yes, DL did hire language speakers while we had F/A's on the "furlough list". The only F/A's on the furlough list at that point (when the language speakers were hired) had been out voluntary leaves and have chosen not to return. They have already been recalled at least twice, and turned it down. The F/A's currently on the furlough list are basically out on leave "personal choice" even when DL began hiring F/A's this year DL went through the furlough list before doing any hiring, which will be done again before we hire. In this case it is a win/win situation for both the DL FA's who are not ready to return to flying yet and DL. Not saying it could not happen, as of this date DL has not furloughed out of seniority order. At other airlines when you are called back from furlough, the F/A is given a choice of base/s (not always your original base), at that time the base is awarded in seniority order. If you decline the recall or simply don't wish to accept the available bases, you are permanently removed from the list and released from the company at that time. We have a little additional flexibility at DL, you are given a choice of open bases if you don't wish to be based there or are not ready to return to work, you simply pass and you will remain on the list for the next round of recalls.

 

[Cajun Flyer]

Cajun:

What this language affectively does, is keep a "fence" between us, until we negotiate a COMBINED contract. That means you have nothing to worry about -- and we wouldn't negotiate a contract that allows ANY bumping of seniority...that is NEVER in a contract. Now, on the contrary, if you don't join AFA and our contract is ruled NULL and VOID, only THEN can what you propose above happen. And, I would go so far as to say that it would play right into Anderson & Co's plans to divide and conquer us.

Hopefully, you will think about this more.

I truly think that I have thought this through. What you're saying here is that the work groups wouldn't be merged until the process of a new contract is complete. So say that's two to three years down the road. Then it's fine for that time period. AFA wouldn't negotiate a contract with any bumping of seniority but if "fair and equitable" are used in negotiating the merging of seniorities from both groups there may be "bumping" of seniority to allow for career expectations of Delta F/A's having a broader network and more flying, especially international flying than do NWA F/A's.

Let me make this clear too, I'm not opposed to unionization, I just don't think AFA is an effective union based upon my study of which unions have done what for their memberships. I've actually spoken with quite a few flight attendants at unionized carriers and AFA gets the worst marks by far from those flight attendants. Sorry but I don't think the AFA is right for Delta F/A's, I'd much sooner take the unions from Southwest and Continental.

 

[JakesWorld]

Let me make this clear too, I'm not opposed to unionization, I just don't think AFA is an effective union based upon my study of which unions have done what for their memberships. I've actually spoken with quite a few flight attendants at unionized carriers and AFA gets the worst marks by far from those flight attendants. Sorry but I don't think the AFA is right for Delta F/A's, I'd much sooner take the unions from Southwest and Continental.

This is a statement that I can agree with. If the choice was different I could see my opinion being completely different.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

First, the 2 carriers Flight Attendant groups are NOT comparably sized. Delta has 5,000 more flight attendants than does Northwest making our group 40% larger. That's not comparable to me.

Cajun--Again, I quoted the Q & A verbatum from this past week's edition of the "Our Delta" newsletter which I picked up and read in the lounge the other day.
So maybe you should mention your disagreements to whomever writes that newsletter. Again, these were not my words; they were Delta's.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Sorry but I don't think the AFA is right for Delta F/A's, I'd much sooner take the unions from Southwest and Continental.

I can respect that. Let me ask you--and I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all--what have you, or your friends who hold the same opinion, done about getting the ball rolling with TWU or another union?? I think your idea is valid but ideas without action are pointless.
I remember the TWU was active 7 years ago at trying to organize DL FAs and they were shot down, actually faster, than AFA.

 

[DLSam]

DL Sam

What can happen if/when the merger is final and a seniority integration agreement/date of hire occurs, is that a fence can be placed around each airlines current operation. What that means is that any base/flying we have and that NW has remains within its specific F/A group for a specified amount of time (i.e. 3-5 years). The fence also protects specific routes, i.e. all Asian flying other than our current ATL-NRT/ICN/PVG remains NW and all our our current European flying with the exception of what NW operates from MSP/DTW remains flown by DL F/A's. If date of hire is used once the fence comes down, and F/A's begin to transfer at that point anyone can transfer to any "open" base and allows them to fly what their seniority can hold.
At this point if AFA is voted in date-of-hire will be used, as a seperate airline I am asssuming we would then being negotiating our first contract, which I assume at this day in age will take anywhere from 18 months to 2 years. Then on the other hand I guess considering the merger situation we could have to wait until we are deemed one work group DL/NW and begin negotiating a single contract at that point. I am assuming this will be up to the AFA BOD to make this decision. Reading AFA's Constitution it does state that one airlines contract cannot have a negative impact on anothers. With us merging AFA could decide just that. That by DL negotiating seperately it would negatively impact a combined contract. So we at DL would not begin negotiating until we negotiate for a single agreement. Also Danny Campbell stating that the NW contract being ruled null and void, when does he expect that to happen? The NW Scope language that they talk so much about does not permit that to happen. Once the NMB declares NW/DL one work group it automatically will result in a election for representation as NW makes up more than 35% of the combined group. Now, if at that time based on a NW/DL vote AFA is not voted in then the combined group would be working under the DL rules. IF, that occurs that is some time down the road and based on what AFA and Danny has said that will not happen as they have the FULL support of the NW F/A and simple math tells you at that time all AFA needs is 15% plus 1 of DL F/A's voting yes to elect AFA representation. Based on what AFA and the NWAFA has been saying DL could not do anything to the NW contract for quite some time. AFA is saying that Anderson is trying to create a division among both groups, maybe its the AFA that is attempting to cause turmoil, as the information they share goes from one side to the other.
Regarding language speakers, at this time DL could furlough another F/A before furloughing a language speaker. Could that occur yes, has it ever occurred NO it has not. Yes, DL did hire language speakers while we had F/A's on the "furlough list". The only F/A's on the furlough list at that point (when the language speakers were hired) had been out voluntary leaves and have chosen not to return. They have already been recalled at least twice, and turned it down. The F/A's currently on the furlough list are basically out on leave "personal choice" even when DL began hiring F/A's this year DL went through the furlough list before doing any hiring, which will be done again before we hire. In this case it is a win/win situation for both the DL FA's who are not ready to return to flying yet and DL. Not saying it could not happen, as of this date DL has not furloughed out of seniority order. At other airlines when you are called back from furlough, the F/A is given a choice of base/s (not always your original base), at that time the base is awarded in seniority order. If you decline the recall or simply don't wish to accept the available bases, you are permanently removed from the list and released from the company at that time. We have a little additional flexibility at DL, you are given a choice of open bases if you don't wish to be based there or are not ready to return to work, you simply pass and you will remain on the list for the next round of recalls.

Hi Jakesworld,

Thanks for the additional info..

Although technically you are correct about f/a's having not been furloughed in place of a language f/a, I would like to take you back to the time shortly after we declared bankrupcy, when DL in-flight was informed that it was being reduced by up to 2400 f/a's. At that time, language f/a's (the jr ones) were told that they would have to sign a contract which included certain criteria (such as only flying language trips) in order to stay if their number came up. Having received a potential furlough letter during that time frame, I was fully aware that a jr language holder could stay in place of myself if my number happened to come up. It's not something that DL likes to talk about, but it is one of our dirty little secrets!!

If this merger does go through and lay-offs occur, or if it doesn't go through but high fuel costs end up causing lay-offs, most of the DL f/'a's that were hired during the last 2 years and are jr to me are language speakers..so I would like to know if afa has protections in place for this situation.

Also, another example of furloughing out of seniority order was during the Song start-up period, when my husband (who is a DL f/a) was furloughed (fall, 2003) in place of song f/a's. Remember when f/a's were offered a Song position of the furlough list, and replaced by mainline f/a's? Thats what got my husband furloughed...he was one of the last 10 f/a's to lose his job.

At this time I am not a afa supporter, but I am sincerely interested in knowing what it truly would mean to have afa on the property (esp since I think a combined company would def have a union), and that's why is why I posed my questions to Danny.

Thanks again,

DLSam

 

[Danny Campbell]

So many questions...

Yes, we have negotiated VERY ATTRACTIVE voluntary furlough programs. In fact, I negotiated one program with Richard Anderson around the time of 9.11 - in which the company allowed various length leaves AND provided PAID medical/dental coverages for the duration of leaves. That program saved 2400 FAs from layoff.

When you compare AFA to other unions (SWA CAL) you have to account for the fact that neither of those empolyees went through bankruptcy - their contracts have not been ripped apart by the faulty US bankruptcy code. At NWA, we have the added experience of being in all THREE types of union (an industrial union (Teamsters), then independant (PFAA) and now AFA). We know the vast differences between the three models and AFA wins hands down. Under the Industrial Union model (TWU, IAM, Teamsters), the organization does NOT have the specialized 'full-time" in-house experts in our industry. We spent 27 years in that model and we didn't realize how bad we had it, until we joined AFA. I'd encourage everyone to read this comparison; http://www.afafrontier.org/default.asp?id=48

I am extremely busy today -- so what other questions am I missing?